Are We Really Still Debating This?

There's a thread on Arfcom where someone asked why did we replace the M1911A1 with the M9 and if it was really necessary.

It's going on 30 pages now.

It's simple, really.

The very last M1911A1 left the factory in 1945.

In 1954 the military tried to replace them (S&W's model 39 dates from this) with a 9mm for NATO standardization and because they were already showing some signs of being long in the tooth.  Never mind that Korea had expended a noticeable number of the, once, huge supply.

Vietnam, likewise, also depleted the stocks of serviceable pistol.

It was only the "happy" circumstance of the military downsizing that allowed the remaining guns to fill demand.

President Reagan reversed that trend and suddenly, with more demand, there would not be enough pistols left to issue one to everyone who was supposed to have one according to the TO&E.

In the early 1980's a new M1911A1 would not have been a cheap gun to manufacture.  Keeping on with the M1911A1 would have meant paying for processes specified in the milspec that were no longer being practiced by anyone still making them.

The M1911A1 is a product of an era where labor was cheap and machinery was expensive.

That had inverted by the time the pistol trials which resulted in the Beretta M9 were held.

Simply, getting new .45's would have cost a great deal more than any 9mm and would also come at the cost of continuing to flaunt NATO standardization in a time period where we'd just shoved 5.56 down Europe's throats after already forcing them to eat 7.62x51mm.

It should also be remembered that the M9 and SIG-Sauer's M11 did not just replace the M1911A1.

They replace ALL the pistols and revolvers in all the services from top to bottom.

In many cases, the M1911A1 wasn't replaced here because it was already found to be unsuitable for the role decades before.